Sunday, 10 November 2013

What does the Bible actually say about life before birth?

The Bible
does not support the view that some human lives are worth less than others. All
are made in the image of God and all are equally precious.

Devaluing or
discriminating against any group of human beings is therefore inconsistent with
God’s justice. He does not show partiality.

The heart
of Christian ethical teaching is that we must love as Christ himself loved
(John 13:34), that the strong should make sacrifices for the weak and if
necessary lay down their lives for the weak (Philippians 2:5-8, Romans 5:6-8). So to suggest that the weak might be sacrificed in the interests of the strong
is simply not biblical morality.

But what
about human life before birth? Do these principles apply here too?

It is
striking just how many references there are in Scripture to human life in the
womb.

Perhaps the most
famous of these is Psalm 139. The Psalmist, looking back to the beginning of
his life declares:

‘For you created my inmost being; you knit me
together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully
made; your works are wonderful...

My frame was not hidden from you when I was
made in the secret place...

your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days
ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.’
(Psalms 139:13-16)

John Stott has argued
that this passage affirms three important things about the human life before
birth.

First, it affirms that
the preborn baby is God’s creation.
It is God who knitted him together. The Hebrew word used by the Psalmist for ‘knit’ (other versions
translate it as ‘weaved’) is raqam, a
comparatively rare word in the Old Testament, which is used almost exclusively
in texts that describe the curtains and veils of Israel’s wilderness tabernacle
and the garments of the high priest.

To say that an unborn
child is ‘roqem’ is therefore to say
something about the cunning skill of the weaver and about the beauty of his
fabric. The tabernacle was the place where the presence of God dwelt. The high
priest acted as the mediator between God and man and was the only one able to
enter the Holy Place. He also pointed forward to Christ, the true mediator and
great High Priest to come who would deal with our sins once and for all
(Hebrews 7:26-28).

With its allusions to
the 'roqem work' of the tabernacle,
the Psalm implies not only that God has made the infant in the womb, but also
that the infant is being woven into a dwelling for God himself.

Next, God is in communion with the preborn baby. At this
stage the baby in the womb can ‘know’ nothing and is in fact not even aware of
its own existence. But this is not important. The key point is that God knows
it. It is God’s love for the psalmist during his time in utero that gives him significance. We see echoes of John’s first
epistle here, ‘This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an
atoning sacrifice for our sins’ (1 John 4:10). God’s relationship with the baby is a
relationship of grace to which the baby itself contributes nothing. It is not
its own attributes that give it value. It is the fact that God knows and loves
it.

Finally, the Psalmist
affirms the continuity between
life before and after birth. The baby in the womb is the Psalmist, the same person,
not a different person and not a non-person.

These three themes of creation, communion and continuity are seen in many other Old
and New Testament Scriptures.

God calls the prophets
Isaiah and Jeremiah before birth (Isaiah
49:1, Jeremiah 1:5) and before they are
capable even of hearing or understanding his call. He forms Job ‘in the womb’ as
well as bringing him out of it (Job 10:8-9, 18-19).

The Isaiah reference
is particularly noteworthy because it comes from one of the so-called ‘Servant
Songs’ and therefore speaks prophetically of Christ himself. Jesus was also
called from the womb.

In Genesis
25, Esau and Jacob wrestle in the womb, displaying the beginning of the competitive
and combative behaviour that would later characterise their family life. In
Psalm 51 David talks about being ‘sinful from the time my mother
conceived me’ and says that God ‘desired faithfulness even in the womb’ and ‘taught
me wisdom in that secret place’.

The Psalm
22 and the Genesis 25 references also look forward prophetically to Christ.
Jesus’ suffering is clearly foretold in the Psalm and he actually quotes its
words from the cross to emphasise that his death was to fulfil its prophecy. The
Genesis passage reminds us that Jesus is the new Israel.

In addition
there are over 60 references which mention the event of conception explicitly
underlining its importance.

One of
these is Matthew 1:20 in which an angel tells Joseph, referring to Mary the
mother of Jesus, that ‘what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit’.

Particularly striking are the verses describing Jesus
conception and inter-uterine development in Luke 1. Here we see
Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, prophesying over Christ in his first
month of gestation, and the baby John ‘leaping’ in her womb.

The timing
is given in some detail. It was in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy
that the angel visited Mary (Luke 1:26). She then went to visit Elizabeth who
gave the prophecy accompanied by her baby leaping (Luke 1:41). As we have
already noted, a baby’s movement cannot be felt until about 18 weeks but ‘in
the sixth month’ means at very least 22 weeks gestation.

The
Scriptures record that, ‘Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three
months and then returned home’ (Luke 1:51), and that Elizabeth gave birth after
that (Luke 1:57). Given that pregnancy lasts nine months we can deduce from
this that Mary must have left to see Elizabeth almost immediately after the
angel’s visit and that Jesus must have therefore been in the very first few
weeks, if not days, of pregnancy at the time of the prophecy.

Why is this relevant? It is important because Jesus’
humanity tells us something about our own humanity. We know that in order to
act as our substitute on the cross, Jesus had to be ‘made like his brothers in every way’ (Hebrews
2:17). He had to be like us in his humanity so that he could take our place. So
it follows that if Jesus was alive in the womb in the first month of pregnancy
then so were we.

To deny the
humanity of the human embryo is therefore to undermine not only the doctrine of
creation, but also the doctrine of the atonement, Christ’s taking the
punishment for sin on our behalf.

Although it
does not state it explicitly, the Bible points very strongly to the conclusion
that human life begins at conception, a process that we know from science
begins with fertilisation, the point at which a new individual human life comes
into being.

At very least
then, should we not be giving the human embryo the benefit of any doubt?

The strong biblical testimony about life before birth points
to the conclusion that human life, from the time of conception is, like other
human life, made in the image of God and worthy of the utmost respect, wonder,
protection and empathy.

Showing this degree of love respect to human beings before
birth may in some circumstances be very costly for us personally. This brings
us back again to the foot of the cross, and the willingness to walk in the
steps of the master who gave himself fully for us and who calls us to love one
another as he has loved us (John 13:34,35).

9 comments:

"the Bible points very strongly to the conclusion that human life begins at conception" [Peter Saunders]

That a mammal's life (including a human's life] began at conception isn't a biblical doctrine, or, at least, a biblical doctrine that is still necessary, now that we have science. Nor is it a conclusion. It isn't even a premiss. It is a tautology.

The definition of the verb to "conceive", is to become the mother of a new mammal specimen. The statement that a human's life began at his or her conception is therefore simply a statement that his or her life began when it began. That is not something that any modern, scientifically-minded thinker needs to read in the bible and to believe by faith, in order to know that the statement is true. It is true, because the statement is a tautology.

The inequality of the pre-born human, with other humans, is always based upon a mere metaphysical doctrine. That doctrine takes various forms, but it always a mutation of an ancient myth called "ensoulment", rehashed as (what I have dubbed) "enpersonment". The enpersonment hypothesis does not belong in scientific biology, or any rational ethical system, not even utilitarianism. It is pure mumbo jumbo.

“ We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it, it’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil and we can recognise that it is human life… but the point is not when does life begin but when does it begin to matter. ”

[ Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, major abortion service provider ]

"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."

Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life"; it gains full human status after birth only.

The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterward, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu -- it is not a person.'

The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.

This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus.

If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve.

An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

THE NEW TESTAMENT IS MORE PERMISSIVE THAN THE OLD!

Jesus repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17) as did his apostles (see chapters 10, 15, and 21 of Acts). Paul, however, not only dismissed his previous adherence to the Law as "so much garbage," but claimed the risen Jesus said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9).

Some Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring all of the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles altogether.

Wouldn't "three times..." thus justify "choice"?

The late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933-2007), raised Catholic but went on to become an evangelical minister, a vegan, and author of God's Covenant with Animals (it's available through People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA), said they're quoting Paul out of context.

Paul, she observed, was very strict with himself:

"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Corinthians 9:27)

Regina Hyland said this verse indicates it's possible for one to lose one's salvation (a serious point of contention among born agains!).

Conservative Christians usually are quick to condemn anyone preaching a false gospel!

"There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action."Really? Later Judah condemns himself and commends Tamar, his widowed daughter in law, because she took responsibilty for her line of descent and Judah did not. There is often much to condemn in stories of patriarchs and while the passage may appear silent on condemnation when it is a narrative or story telling passage, we can be absolutely clear from those passages that clearly teach morality. The biblical view on murder and abortion is totally clear. To imply otherwise is either ignorant or willfully disingenuous.

Peter Saunders has made very homophobic comments and clearly doesn't believe the Bible. If, as he writes, "The Bible does not support the view that some human lives are worth less than others. All are made in the image of God and all are equally precious." then why does he spend his life degrading and harming the dignity of others? He clearly thinks people who are gay are not fully human or worthy of full human dignity. He needs to explain himself.

No explanation is required. I have simply expressed an orthodox Christian view about homosexuality. People who identify themselves as gay are as precious in God's sight as everyone else and Jesus died for them and calls them to repentance and faith as he does everyone else. Refs on homophobia and sexuality below:

My take on homophobia - http://bit.ly/FPldkEBiblical teaching on marriage and sexuality - http://bit.ly/yw3XUU

Peter, I totally agree that the baby in the womb should be protected and thank you for this article., but Psalm 139 v13--16 Reads "For thou hast possessed my reins" possessed means, in Hebrew, "to acquire, or set up" (speaks to me of God's purpose for David's future). Knit in the Bible is used a very few times, but not here and it means "bound together." The Ps goes on- "Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb" covered means to cover, or hedge in, which, to me, speaks of protection v14-"fearfully and wonderfully made, marvellous are thy works and that my soul knoweth right well = greatly. v15 )My substance was not hid from thee (substance in Hebrew can mean just substance or bone) when I was made in secret"-not even his mother knew him at conception and for a few weeks, but God knew him. "Curiously wrought" means embroidered ie made beautiful in God's sight for he was to be, not only His child, but a great King, "After God's own heart" and on the forerunner of Christ throne. Even though I beg to differ on small details, the human child should have all the rights of every other person for that's what they are, small people. We don't finish developing until 20-30yrs old. The womb should be the safest place on earth. Not all those born are the children of God. Most do not repent and Christ said, "Ye are of your father, the devil and the works of your father ye will do", only repentant sinner are elligable to be called sons of God. Not everyone is, or will be saved, The baby's development is a picture of the new born babe "in Christ".They make a lot of noise to say they have arrived (and how we love to hear that cry). but up to birth, the work has been done in silence and even in secret, just as in salvation-we have the "quickening of the Spirit" and begin to move in new ways, begin to recognise sounds and peole who love us ie other Christians, and there comes the day when they have fruit-fruit for our labour-another new babe in Christ. What a priviledged people we are, who are born again of the Spirit, what a hope, what a word to share but we need help to understand and grow in grace. As babes we crawl, walk and then run- let us run "race that is set before us"

I am sorry to see the way Dr Saunders has misused Scripture to support his arguments. I have looked at many of his Bible references, and I believe that very few of them, when properly understood, actually support his arguments. For example, he quotes the Psalms (and other passages such as Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 1:5) without understanding the principle of Hebrew poetry where two successive lines are alternative ways of saying the same thing. He majors on Psalm 139, even though the last sentence quoted, “All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” counteracts his argument: the Psalmist is referring to a time before conception. Other Scriptures (e.g. Ephesians 1:4, Revelation 13:8) describe God’s knowledge of us before the foundation of the world; quite a lot of weeks before birth! Dr Saunders’ use of Luke 1 relating to the birth of Jesus is also incorrect; there is nothing in the passage to indicate that Jesus was even conceived when Mary met Elisabeth.Please can Christians base their arguments on what Scripture says, rather than twisting Scripture to support their pre-conceived ideas.I am a Christian who believes that a human is created by God with a soul. The Bible makes it very clear that the soul leaves the body at death, and ends up in either heaven or hell. For a Christian, the abortion question must be about the point at which the soul is created, or enters the body. How many Scriptures support the idea that a foetus is a person with a soul? I think there are a few, but let’s think carefully about them.

Your case here seems to rest on the claim that the 'soul' enters the body after conception, but this idea can be challenged on two counts:

1. The Bible does not support this kind of soul/body dualism. We are ensouled bodies or embodied souls - unified wholes.

2. The timing of Jesus' birth is clear from the context. God sent the angel to Mary when Elizabeth was in her 6th month of pregnancy with John the Baptist (Luke 1:24,26,36). Shortly afterwards Elizabeth prophesied about the baby Mary would bear. Mary subsequently stayed with Elizabeth three months and then went home (1:56). Elizabeth would have this time been full term (nine months) and gave birth shortly afterwards. This means that no more than one month elapsed between the angel's visitation and Elizabeth's prophecy about Jesus, meaning that Jesus would have been in his first month of intrauterine life.

The Bible does not support the view that some human lives are worth less than others . All are made in the image of God and all are equally precious." then why does he spend his life degrading and harming the dignity of others? He clearly thinks people who are gay are not fully human or worthy of full human dignity. He needs to explain himself.

Contact the author

Search this Blog

Kiwi, Christian and Medical

This blog deals mainly with matters at the interface of Christianity and Medicine. But I do also diverge into other subjects - especially New Zealand, rugby, economics, developing world, politics and topics of general Christian and/or medical interest. The opinions expressed here are mine and may not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or anyone else associated with me.

About Me

I am CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. The opinions expressed here however are mine, and may not necessarily reflect the views of CMF or anyone else associated with me.